The Danger of Destroying Liberal/Progressive Wealth

[Mike03]

Every week or two someone here seems to express the sentiment that either the stock market should crash in order to hurt the wealthy (never mind for the moment why that is an entirely irrational argument) or that the rich are somehow evil and need to be extinguished (the word "extinction" was recently used) at any cost, no matter what their political affiliation may or may not be.

My question is, if some of you demand that your candidates accept no money from corporations, and you on the other hand want to erradicate all progressive wealth throug taxation, how do you ever expect Democrats to be able to compete with the Repukes in elections?

Would you rather they receive money from independent sources or from corporations, because it has to be one way or the other.

I think it's better for benefactors to give to the candidates than for Merck, Roche or Johnson and Johnson to be giving to candidates that we want to give us Universal Health Care. And the same argument can be made for a whole host of other issues. You want Schwab donating to candiates who will decide whether or not Social Security is privatized? You want Monsanto donating to Hillary? Do you want Dow Chemical donating to Obama?

Then there's the entire issue of whether there would even be a Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, which is saving hundreds of children a day from dying of malaria or dehydration, and Warren Buffet from giving his entire estate, prematurely, to assist in efforts to save our neighbors around the world. Not to mention George Sorros and the venture capitalists who are behind things like Air America and Nova Radio. These are loss leaders, but people who are lucky enough to have money do them anyway, in spite of the fact they are financial losers. They do them on principle.

It's very stupid to argue for wiping out private wealth by taxes, IMO. Because you are not just damaging the money of your opponents, but the money of your own candidates and humanitarian causes.

Besides, you trust the government to decide how to spend private wealth? Oh, they do a great job, don't they? You know where it's going to go, don't you? To provide luxuries to the congress that we don't get ourselves, or to finance wars, bribe proxy nations and unwilling "allies."

Since when did being a Democrat become participating in a class war in which we cut off our own noses to spite our faces.

Rant over. Flame away.

[Hydra]

1. You think those people are helping?

Pardon me while I :rofl:

As long as they control who leads us, we are walking straight to hell.

[Mike03]

5. Which people? Bill and Melinda Gates?

That laugh icon is a cop out. Why don't you explain what you are talking about?

[Hydra]

10. I don't have time to write a novel about how innaccurate your portrayal over various things are

But how about you start by looking up where the foundation money is being invested. There was a big brouhaha about how the Gates foundation was investing in businesses that were causing the problems they were trying to solve. Then take some time to look into how foundations like that are used as tax shelters for pet projects that ultimately benefit the people supposedly "donating" to things.

Then look at how much direct benefit has occurred from such "people of wealth"(which I will refer to as monopolizers from now on) as compared to the lives they wreck.

If you still want to excuse their behavior...

[Mike03]

14. I didn't know there was controversy about the Gates foundation.

Why are people so nasty here? I have read and respected your posts for a long time.

[Hydra]

17. That's nice that you appreciate my often biting sarcasm

But the problem is that your OP is a gift to the Bush Admin and everyone else running this country into the ground. I have to fight this kind of thinking on the ground level every day in my various advocacies.

Since I feel like giving you the benefit of the doubt, start by watching http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279">Money As Debt.

The novel comes after that. If you bother to watch that, I'll answer any question you ask regarding this issue. Money as it is currently is NOT helping our party- it's the only thing keeping the Grand ol' Perverts in office.

[Mike03]

7. Why don't they help?

EDIT: *crickets*

(God, I'm starting to hate this place)

[Hydra]

12. Am I supposed to be at your beck and call?

or did you feel the need to post twice?

[Mike03]

13. I was just asking for some clarification. Nevermind.

Sorry to trouble you.

[Mojambo]

2. I want publicly funded elections.

And I don't want wealth eradicated, I just want it taxed higher than work.

We got it backwards right now.

[LSparkle]

9. Exactly! Work and wealth should BOTH be rewarded and respected

I want the inheritance tax (yes, that's what it should PROPERLY be called) enforced so that each person has to work toward his own success or failure. I'm tired of people who just happened to be born into the right family have a natural leg up (more like a skyscraper up these days) on the rest of us. Let's have a true MERITOCRACY, where everyone is rewarded based on their efforts.

Maybe this is a gross generalization, but I think more Democratic wealth is WORKED FOR, as opposed to inherited -- we as a party are not opposed to hard work. (Look at people like Bill Gates' dad and Warren Buffett.) Rethugs, on the other hand, want to "save their children from the horror of work" so that they can grow up to be ne'erdowells like ... the spawn of Poppy and Bar.

[Mike03]

16. I agree the rich should pay their fair share

But aren't rich people just like public people?

What's the difference between my neighbor who might have three million dollars and me, who might have ten thousand in the bank?

Maybe I don't understand how wealth is defined. But if he has more money than I do and loves Clinton or Obama or Biden, what's the problem with him donating what he can?

Apparently I'm missing something obvious, because no one is agreeing with me. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "private."

I mean public human beings who have more money than most of us have, donating their money to candidates they like. That's all I mean.

[Selatius]

3. I generally support what Arizona and Maine did with campaign finance reform/public funding.

There are basically four rules you got to abide by in order to qualify for full public funding.

• 1. Volunteer to forego all private donations.
  
• 2. Agree to abide by proscribed spending guidelines.
  
• 3. Volunteer to forego the use of your own private funds.
  
• 4. Demonstrate the viability of your candidacy by collecting, for instance, X number of, say, 5 dollar donations or signatures equal to X percentage of people in that voting district. X could be 5 percent, for instance.
  

If you can satisfy the rules, then you get a lump sum payment to run your campaign upon, and if you are outspent by your opponent, you get matching funds up to a certain amount within reason. The effects in these states is pretty stark. Most candidates in the state races there run on public financing now. Most Democrats have, and maybe some of the Republicans have. The rest of the Repubs run on contributions from their own interests. More independents have run as a result of this reform, and more candidates have run in general because money is less of a problem now.

Go here to view the video:

http://www.caclean.org/materials/

There is a movement to bring this kind of public financing to the state of California, hence the name caclean.

[Mike03]

4. Foregive my confusion, but what is bad

about accepting money from a private donor who just wants to give to a candidate out of belief in that candidate, who has no connections at all to any corporations or ulterior motives??

I don't understand this at all. It seems to me that is a good thing.

[flashl]

15. This information about campaigns caused me to pause

"Viable presidential candidates must raise at least $100 million each by the end of 2007, before even entering the actual election year. This means collecting five $2,300 campaign contributions “every single hour, every single day, including weekends and holidays, for an entire year,” estimates political scientist Michael Malbin.

Where does all this money come from? Mostly from the same special interests who have business pending before the federal government. In order to make sure that jingle of the pocket books of any particular special interest are heard loud and clear, businesses and wealthy special interest groups will be represented by a “bundler.”

Bundlers usually are CEOs or lobbyists of a business or industry. They will approach a campaign and receive tracking identification from the campaign, say, a tracking number. The bundler then reaches out to all the managers and other individuals of the business or industry and ask them to mail in their individual campaign contributions of $2,300 (the legal limit from an individual to a federal candidate), and write the company’s tracking number of the check. That way the campaign knows which business or industry is responsible for those contributions."

---

Grassroots and benevolence is not in the above description, the color green is, and in the current climate, green=greed.

[Selatius]

18. What is bad about a poor person competing with a rich person as far as raising money is concerned?

The problem lies in the fact that a small number of wealthy individuals who bundle their contributions together can match or outweigh the contribution efforts of many more poor people because they lack the funds to write 2300 dollar checks.

[flashl]

6. This may be a fair question if the recent Hertiage Foundation report

is true.

"In America, the Democratic party is the new "party of the rich". More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households ... Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats ... This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds."

This new information may explain complaints here on DU that the Dem "leadership" viewpoint is vastly different from the grassroots.

[Turbineguy]

8. But that report contended

that everybody with more than $48,500 per year in income was "rich".

It's the normal rethug method. If you want a certain result alter the formula.

[flashl]

11. Understood. But, floating 'rich Democrats' into the ether without

contesting the report will become a challenge.